The BBC reports the political left must stop "holding up egalitarianism as the ideal", Communities Secretary John Denham told the Fabian Society . Basing fairness purely on "society's response to those in greatest need" risked being unpopular, he said. Denham said that the numbers within society who signed up to the traditional egalitarian view were "simply too small to construct a strong, viable and inclusive electoral coalition". The group of people who sign up to a traditional egalitarian view of society (only 22% according to research) tends to be older and more traditionally working class. In other words, a demographic that is actually shrinking.He told the Fabian Society: "We must confront the difficult truth: that this form of egalitarianism, the one that defines fairness solely in terms of society's response to those in greatest need, is badly out of step with popular sentiment."
Ah , so there we have it , the Labour Party instead of what any principled organisation would do , try educate and convince the public of its aims , bows down to the mob rule of prejudice for the sake of political power . Denham said Labour had to relate to the aspirations of people on middle incomes, adding that this group felt excluded by policies and language aimed at 'the poor'.
Denham talks of his family history , "If I think back to when my father was growing up in South Yorkshire in the 1920s and 1930s, they knew what was wrong with society. Basically, the railways on which his father worked were owned by private owners, and the mines in which everybody else round his street worked were owned by private owners, and the problem was the bosses. What you would have had very widely and for a long period of time was a common description which would have been shared not just across the left, but a large chunk of society, why our society is the way it is.What came across really strongly in this research is that there is no common story about why our society is unequal. People have varying levels of knowledge about how unequal it is, or the consequences of inequality. But no story about why it is the way that it is."
At last an element of truth from his speech. After a century of lying and deceit about the true state of affairs , particularly by the Labour Party is it no surprise then that people are confused about the real cause of inequality. There were always some trying to build a "fairer" society but what has emerged was not a slowly evolving socialism but a Labourism which increasingly judged itself on its electoral success, and which depends on its ability not to rock the capitalist boat it was trying to steer. But, in truth, the majority are impoverished. It is impoverished insofar as it has no other option than to sell its working abilities to those who monopolise the means of living and whose conspicuous wealth must irresistibly provide the very yardstick by which that poverty will be starkly exposed. This may not be the poverty of material destitution. But if the measure of a human being consists in the accumulation of material possessions to which he or she may claim the, by that token, we are demeaned. And, ultimately, it is in this devaluation of our human worth—not simply in the fact of material inequality but in the meaning this society attaches to it—that we may glimpse the very essence of this poverty.
Reports like this make my blood boil. How dare these turn-coat Labour MPs suck up to the la-de-daa Middle class voters.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that the Labour party has been run by frauds ever since Ramsay MacDonald became the first Labour PM in 1924 - he was determined to shelve good socialist policies in order to get into power - even stabbing the party in the back and joining with Baldwin in 1930. Even during the chaos of the 1970s and 80s, most Labour MPs could only spell the word Poverty, and were a bunch of bleeding-heart middle class grinners, who were too easily bought out by bankers and fat cats.
Denham is a pig. He has no idea how hard it is for people my age to find a full-time job, afford a home, afford transport, or afford to start a family - even with the odd tax credit here and there.
while there may be a possible merit in using the word "middle class" to denote status differences , in Marxist terms , however , we would say they do not exist economically but are a part of the working class , those dependant uppon working for a wge or salary for survival
ReplyDeleteAs an aside , i read today
The gap in life expectancy between the prosperous "middle classes" and those in the most deprived homes is widening sharply, latest health figures show.
Men in Blackpool now live on average up to 73.2 years, 10.5 years fewer than their counterparts in Kensington and Chelsea. Women in Hartlepool have the lowest female life expectancy at 78.1 years, around 9.6 years less than in the central London borough.Over a three-year period – from 2004-06 to 2005-07 – the figures reveal that the gap between local authorities at opposite ends of the health spectrum grew by 0.4 years for men and 0.8 years for women.
Alan Walker, professor of social policy and social gerontology at the University of Sheffield, said: "Messages about wellbeing and healthy lifestyles penetrate more rapidly into the middle-class professional households than they do into working-class homes and households on benefits.
"It's easier on a comfortable income to make those lifestyle choices. When you are poor you simply can't choose what you eat. Try to tell a hard-pressed mother to stop smoking – she may say thats it's the only thing that gets her through the day.
"It's much easier for those on higher incomes. The health inequality statistics are a mirror of other inequalities. Those differences are getting wider. It's hard cash, like child benefits, that is going to make a difference."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/03/life-expectancy-patterns